NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential. 

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit 

__________________________ 

MARK RICHARD GLASSER, 

Petitioner, 

v. 

MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD, 

Respondent. 

__________________________ 

2012-3146 

__________________________ 

Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection 

Board in Case No. NY0752110236-I-1. 

___________________________ 

Decided: November 9, 2012 

___________________________ 

MARK RICHARD GLASSER, of Patchogue, New York, pro 

se. 

SARA B. REARDEN, Attorney, Office of the General 

Counsel, Merit Systems Protection Board, of Washington, 

DC, for respondent. With her on the brief were JAMES M.

EISENMANN, General Counsel and KEISHA DAWN BELL, 

Deputy General Counsel. 

__________________________ 
MARK GLASSER v. MSPB 2

Before BRYSON, PROST, and WALLACH, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM. 

DECISION

Mark R. Glasser seeks review of a decision of the 

Merit Systems Protection Board dismissing his appeal for 

untimeliness. We affirm. 

BACKGROUND

Mr. Glasser was removed from his position as Tax 

Examining Technician with the Internal Revenue Service 

on January 10, 2011. The reason for his dismissal was 

his absence without leave from May 21, 2010, through the 

date of his termination. The agency’s decision letter was 

postmarked January 18, 2011, and Mr. Glasser received it 

no later than January 25. The letter informed Mr. 

Glasser of his right to appeal his termination to the Merit 

Systems Protection Board by filing an appeal within 30 

days of receiving the termination decision. Mr. Glasser 

did not file his appeal to the Board until May 20, 2011, or 

85 days after the 30-day appeal period had passed. 

The administrative judge who was assigned to Mr. 

Glasser’s case ordered him to show cause as to why his 

appeal should not be dismissed as untimely. Mr. Glasser 

informed the Board that he had left the envelope containing the agency decision letter unopened until May 6 

because he believed it was “irrelevant jibberish.” He also 

stated that he believed the Board was not a “viable forum” to hear his claims and that even upon opening the 

agency’s decision letter he did not file his appeal for 

another two weeks. 
3 MARK GLASSER v. MSPB

The administrative judge dismissed Mr. Glasser’s appeal as untimely, and the full Board denied his petition 

for review. Mr. Glasser now petitions for review by this 

court. 

DISCUSSION

An appeal to the Board “must be filed no later than 30 

days after the effective date, if any, of the action being 

appealed, or 30 days after the date of the appellant's 

receipt of the agency's decision, whichever is later.” 5 

C.F.R. §1201.22(b)(1). If an appeal is filed after the 

deadline, “it will be dismissed as untimely filed unless a 

good reason for the delay is shown.” Id. §1201.22(c). “To 

establish good cause for an untimely filing, a party must 

show that he exercised due diligence or ordinary prudence 

under the particular circumstances of the case.” Martinez 

v. Broad. Bd. of Governors, 115 M.S.P.R. 46, 49 (2010); see

Rocha v. Merit Sys. Prot. Bd., 688 F.3d 1307, 1311 (Fed. 

Cir. 2012); Phillips v. U.S. Postal Serv., 695 F.3d 1389, 

1391 (Fed. Cir. 1982). “[W]hether the regulatory time 

limit for an appeal should be waived based upon a showing of good cause is a matter committed to the Board's 

discretion and this court will not substitute its own judgment for that of the Board.” Mendoza v. Merit Sys. Prot. 

Bd., 966 F.2d 650, 653 (Fed. Cir. 1992) (en banc). 

Mr. Glasser does not dispute that his appeal to the 

Board was untimely. He received notice of his termination on January 25, 2011, at the latest, but he did not file 

his appeal until May 20 of that year. The Board did not 

abuse its discretion in finding that Mr. Glasser’s proffered 

reasons for his untimely delay do not establish good 

cause. Intentionally putting aside a letter conveying the 

agency’s termination decision and failing to read it for 
MARK GLASSER v. MSPB 4

more than 100 days does not constitute due diligence or a 

reasonable excuse for an untimely filing. 

Mr. Glasser’s failure to timely appeal was not the result of misinformation or a misunderstanding of the time 

limits for filing an appeal but was the product of his own 

decision as to how to treat the termination notice. Mr. 

Glasser admits that “[i]f I had opened the termination 

letter the day I received it, I would not have acted differently.” He states that he “made the firm decision not to 

waste time or effort in appeals doomed to fail.” Mr. 

Glasser made a deliberate choice not to appeal his case to 

the Board, and he stuck with that position until the time 

to appeal had lapsed. That he subsequently changed his 

mind does not constitute good cause to excuse his failure 

to file a timely appeal. 

No costs. 

AFFIRMED